Post by: flysar on May 21, 2011, 09:34:42 AM
What is wrong with expanding the season to year-round for Boot hunters; doubt we'd put a real dent in the total population since killing a cougar without dogs is generally a chance encounter while scouting or hunting other game. Please tell me there is more to it than losing about $6,000 in revenue from special permit applications.
The weapon limitation is also rediculous - I can buy a bear tag and hunt with any weapon during the same time there is weapon limitations for Cougar. I doubt eliminating the weapon limitation would increase hunters in the woods or illegally poached animals and would allow rifle Bear hunters with a Cougar tag to harvest a cougar should the chance present itself regardless of the date.
I had a goat killed and I was able to kill the cougar for depredation purposes. The responding officer said that he spends most of his day responding to and investigating cougar sitings and livestock kills which leaves very little time for enforcement - seems like we have this a little backwards. WDFW, why don't you let the hunters help you out some.
Back to my original question, what has the most effectiveness for changing game laws - petitions, multiple letters to whomever, etc? There has to be more to it than attending meetings and voicing an opinion.
I'm willing to do the work but want to focus my efforts in the right direction. Those who have done it or seen it done please give me some pointers!
Post by: bucklucky on May 21, 2011, 09:38:25 AM
Post by: benhuntin on May 21, 2011, 09:40:12 AM
Post by: PolarBear on May 21, 2011, 09:51:38 AM
Since when is cougar season not year round :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Cougar, wolf and coyote season is already year round, right? Just remember the South Park episode, if you yell "It's coming right for us!!" you can shoot anything in self defense!
Post by: benhuntin on May 21, 2011, 09:54:13 AM
I was gonna write wolf but I figured that was a givenSince when is cougar seaon not year round :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Cougar, wolf and coyote season is already year round, right?
Post by: grundy53 on May 21, 2011, 10:16:10 AM
Post by: Bofire on May 21, 2011, 10:18:27 AM
that said I doubt you get far with that idea.
Carl
Post by: bearpaw on May 21, 2011, 10:25:56 AM
That issue is a good issue for the WFW Cougar Committee to work on.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 21, 2011, 10:32:50 AM
Post by: flysar on May 21, 2011, 10:45:13 AM
Post by: addicted on May 21, 2011, 10:47:06 AM
Post by: fair-chase on May 21, 2011, 11:42:04 AM
Post by: Houndhunter on May 21, 2011, 02:54:22 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on May 22, 2011, 02:30:57 PM
Post by: GlennGTR on May 22, 2011, 03:10:58 PM
I agree that we need to get rid of the weapon specific limitations. I would be happy if the seasons ran the same as bobcat Sep 15 to Mar 15. What weapons restrictions are we talking about exactly? I believe that now we can use any centerfire handgun or rifle 22 call or larger. We can also use archery equipment, rimfire is NOT allowed. These seem like very light restrictions if you ask me. If I were to change anything I would make it, Any Center Fire Cartridge, which would open up the 204 Ruger, 20 VarTarg, 17 Fireball, 17 rem, and other high velocity small bore calibers. The rimfires will kill a cat but dont leave enough for a margin of error.
Post by: grundy53 on May 22, 2011, 03:17:21 PM
I agree that we need to get rid of the weapon specific limitations. I would be happy if the seasons ran the same as bobcat Sep 15 to Mar 15. What weapons restrictions are we talking about exactly? I believe that now we can use any centerfire handgun or rifle 22 call or larger. We can also use archery equipment, rimfire is NOT allowed. These seem like very light restrictions if you ask me. If I were to change anything I would make it, Any Center Fire Cartridge, which would open up the 204 Ruger, 20 VarTarg, 17 Fireball, 17 rem, and other high velocity small bore calibers. The rimfires will kill a cat but dont leave enough for a margin of error.
They are talking about being restricted to using archery only in September and muzzleloader only during early muzzy.
Post by: grundy53 on May 22, 2011, 03:21:17 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on May 22, 2011, 04:21:17 PM
Post by: stumprat on June 05, 2011, 09:21:09 PM
You will never see a year round season on cougars. They could not sustain that much pressure. My complaint is not with the length of the seasons. Just the weapon restrictions.
Many of you seem to forget. That pre 1996 cougar hunts were by raffle permit drawings. Over the counter tag sales didn't occur until after the hounds were outlawed.
Post by: Kain on June 05, 2011, 09:30:05 PM
I agree with doing away with the weapon restrictions on cougar 100%.
You will never see a year round season on cougars. They could not sustain that much pressure. My complaint is not with the length of the seasons. Just the weapon restrictions.
Many of you seem to forget. That pre 1996 cougar hunts were by raffle permit drawings. Over the counter tag sales didn't occur until after the hounds were outlawed.
I would be happy if we could get rid of the weapon restriction but I would still really like to see the season go back to 2008 regs. I am fine with one tag as I doubt many got to fill two anyways. A few year-long special draw tags in areas that could support them would be sweet also.
Post by: DoubleJ on June 05, 2011, 09:31:44 PM
Since when is cougar season not year round :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Cougar, wolf and coyote season is already year round, right? Just remember the South Park episode, if you yell "It's coming right for us!!" you can shoot anything in self defense!
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi203.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa213%2Fhandsomestu%2F103_jimboshootsbear.jpg%3Ft%3D1242011528&hash=8a36e1b075afbba873fd25f59634e9695cf6f970)
Post by: rainshadow1 on June 05, 2011, 09:55:30 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on June 05, 2011, 11:33:12 PM
"Watcha doin'?"
"uh, Cougar huntin.." He replies.
cant prove he wasn't.. :dunno:
Post by: carpsniperg2 on June 05, 2011, 11:39:51 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on June 05, 2011, 11:45:11 PM
Just another fine example of a few losers screwing it up for the rest of us... >:( :bash:
Post by: Kain on June 05, 2011, 11:49:47 PM
THe way I understood it, the weapon restriction was meant to help out the gamies. Turns out they commonly caught a guy running around during deer or elk season with a deer rifle when he had already filled his tags.
"Watcha doin'?"
"uh, Cougar huntin.." He replies.
cant prove he wasn't.. :dunno:
That makes absolutely no sense at all since you can still hunt all small game, and bears with a rifle. I can still hunt with my bow if I tagged out on deer or elk during archery season. In fact now I am forced to if I want to hunt cougars. If an officer comes up to me and asks why I am hunting with a bow if I already filled my tags I will have to remind him that there is lots more animals to hunt than just deer and elk. The weapons restriction is just stupid.
First it was because of some safety concern or conflict with other outdoor users. Of course now they are saying it is because of cougar populations. Whatever excuse fits their agenda is the one they will use. 2003 cougar population estimates were 1900-2100 cats. In 2008 the number went UP to 2000-2500.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/cougars.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/cougars.html)
Quote
Cougars occur throughout Washington where suitable cover and prey are found. The cougar population for the year 2008 was estimated to be 2000 to 2,500 animals. The cougar population in eastern Washington is declining and the westside population is stable. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has nine management zones around the state designated for "maintain" or "decline," and adjusts harvest levels accordingly.Well thats weird, isnt 2008 the year they started pushing for the reduced season and weapons restrictions? They were trying to push the same regulations for bear season but hunters were having no part of it. If the population is stable on the west side with the old regs why change them? If the population is declining on the east side why were they fighting for the pilot program. It has nothing to do with population concerns.
Post by: grundy53 on June 06, 2011, 05:30:36 AM
THe way I understood it, the weapon restriction was meant to help out the gamies. Turns out they commonly caught a guy running around during deer or elk season with a deer rifle when he had already filled his tags.
"Watcha doin'?"
"uh, Cougar huntin.." He replies.
cant prove he wasn't.. :dunno:
if this were the case they would have done the same thing for bear.
Post by: billythekidrock on June 06, 2011, 05:54:57 AM
THe way I understood it, the weapon restriction was meant to help out the gamies. Turns out they commonly caught a guy running around during deer or elk season with a deer rifle when he had already filled his tags.
"Watcha doin'?"
"uh, Cougar huntin.." He replies.
cant prove he wasn't.. :dunno:
if this were the case they would have done the same thing for bear.
Don't think it hasn't been thought of. They aleady want to shut down bear hunting in August.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 06, 2011, 06:22:43 AM
THe way I understood it, the weapon restriction was meant to help out the gamies. Turns out they commonly caught a guy running around during deer or elk season with a deer rifle when he had already filled his tags.nailed it ... the main reason why !!
"Watcha doin'?"
"uh, Cougar huntin.." He replies.
cant prove he wasn't.. :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2011, 06:52:10 AM
Post by: Malottguy on June 06, 2011, 06:53:30 AM
What really makes me mad is the season is shut down during modern deer in the okanogan/chelan areas. :bash:
The largest cat I have ever seen was just last year smack dab in the middle of the general season. So wish I could of pulled my trigger.
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2011, 08:07:28 AM
It seems the WDFW doesn't like the idea of having cougar open during rifle deer or elk seasons. Why not ask for cougar to be open year around except for when any general rifle deer or elk season is open?
Thoughts???
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 06, 2011, 08:13:59 AM
Testing the waters with this question....none of it makes sense to me Dale .. what are the chances of even seeing one ? its not like everyone who buys a tag is going to fill it.. I have only seen 3 in my whole life and I have been all over this state inside and out... how many have you seen without a hound on his butt ? just out hunting on foot ? nothen makes sense to me on how they run cougar and bear hunting .. if we could bait bear they would save alot more younger animals .. :twocents:
It seems the WDFW doesn't like the idea of having cougar open during rifle deer or elk seasons. Why not ask for cougar to be open year around except for when any general rifle deer or elk season is open?
Thoughts???
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2011, 08:27:39 AM
I have talked to WDFW about the cougar issue during general rifle seasons. They told me one reason they cut back was that too many cougar (especially females) were being taken in general rifle seasons. Even though individual opportunity is limited, there are so many hunters in the woods that harvest adds up.
It's easy to sweeten your coffee with a little sugar: So I was trying to suggest an option that may resonate with management and biology. At least if it was open other times of the year, it would give hunters another animal to hunt the rest of the year? :dunno:
That seems like a win/win to me, but it may not if you only like to make one or two hunting trips a year.
Any thoughts?
Post by: grundy53 on June 06, 2011, 09:11:00 AM
Post by: Kain on June 06, 2011, 09:45:40 AM
THe way I understood it, the weapon restriction was meant to help out the gamies. Turns out they commonly caught a guy running around during deer or elk season with a deer rifle when he had already filled his tags.
"Watcha doin'?"
"uh, Cougar huntin.." He replies.
cant prove he wasn't.. :dunno:
if this were the case they would have done the same thing for bear.
Don't think it hasn't been thought of. They aleady want to shut down bear hunting in August.
If this is the real reason they would have to add weapon restricted seasons for all huntable wildlife. I dont doubt they are thinking about that as well.
Not saying how it needs to be, but trying to suggest an option that WDFW may consider.
I have talked to WDFW about the cougar issue during general rifle seasons. They told me one reason they cut back was that too many cougar (especially females) were being taken in general rifle seasons. Even though individual opportunity is limited, there are so many hunters in the woods that harvest adds up.
It's easy to sweeten your coffee with a little sugar: So I was trying to suggest an option that may resonate with management and biology. At least if it was open other times of the year, it would give hunters another animal to hunt the rest of the year? :dunno:
That seems like a win/win to me, but it may not if you only like to make one or two hunting trips a year.
Any thoughts?
I like the idea of at least some year round cougar hunting but I think we really need to push them to explain why they made the changes in the first place. If you look at harvest numbers they stay consistent except for 2008 when a lower number of cougars were taken but a higher number of females. One year does not make a trend and could have been a fluke. After the shorter season and weapon restrictions the female harvest ratio went right back to about 50%. I think this proves that 2008 is a fluke and also proves that the 3 or 4 females to every 1 males territory is questionable. If that were the case you would see a LOT more females being taken.
The carrot to dangle in front of the WDFW is the loss of revenue from to many ungulates being eaten. For every adult cougar that can be taken there are around 37 ungulates that are lost per year.
Year Female Total cats Source
2010 78 165 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/reports/cougar.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/reports/cougar.php)
2009 72 142 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2009/reports/cougar.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2009/reports/cougar.php)
2008 106 188 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2008/reports/cougar.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2008/reports/cougar.php)
2007 100 201 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2007/cougar.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2007/cougar.php)
2006 96 200 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2006/cougar.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2006/cougar.php)
2005 78 202 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2005/cougar.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2005/cougar.php)
2004 102 208 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2004/cougar.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2004/cougar.pdf)
Post by: Pathfinder101 on June 06, 2011, 09:47:25 AM
I like the year round idea. Not so hot on the no cougar during general rifle season. I think the WDFW is full of BS saying to many are being taken. Just like their population estimates are BS. They don't want any cougar to be killed.
Like I said earlier; I don't think that is the actual case. They may give the excuse that too many cougs are being taken in "certain units" to give the weapon restriction some legitimacy, but the truth is that it is to make deer and elk poachers easier to bust. I think they did a little math; How many poachers did we have to "let go" last year because they happened to be carrying a cat tag minus the actual number of cougars killed incidentally during deer/elk season, and they figured it wasn't worth it... :dunno:
I think a year around season that closes during the deer and elk MF seasons would be a fair compromise. At least firewood cutters/berry pickers would have a chance to take a super-predator out of the mix from time to time...
We all know that there are too many cats.
Post by: Curly on June 06, 2011, 10:09:39 AM
Testing the waters with this question....
It seems the WDFW doesn't like the idea of having cougar open during rifle deer or elk seasons. Why not ask for cougar to be open year around except for when any general rifle deer or elk season is open?
Thoughts???
It really should be open during deer and elk season. That is when most guys are going to take a cougar anyway.
I used to always buy a cougar tag just in case I come across one while deer/elk hunting. Now that they've changed the rules I don't bother buying cougar tags anymore.........I'm sure a lot of guys did the same.
At a time when WDFW needs all the money they can get, I don't see why they want to reduce the number of cougar tags sold. :dunno:
Post by: str8meat on June 06, 2011, 10:30:11 AM
Post by: grundy53 on June 06, 2011, 11:39:29 AM
I like the year round idea. Not so hot on the no cougar during general rifle season. I think the WDFW is full of BS saying to many are being taken. Just like their population estimates are BS. They don't want any cougar to be killed.
Like I said earlier; I don't think that is the actual case. They may give the excuse that too many cougs are being taken in "certain units" to give the weapon restriction some legitimacy, but the truth is that it is to make deer and elk poachers easier to bust. I think they did a little math; How many poachers did we have to "let go" last year because they happened to be carrying a cat tag minus the actual number of cougars killed incidentally during deer/elk season, and they figured it wasn't worth it... :dunno:
I think a year around season that closes during the deer and elk MF seasons would be a fair compromise. At least firewood cutters/berry pickers would have a chance to take a super-predator out of the mix from time to time...
We all know that there are too many cats.
If it were about poaching why didn't they change the bear season too? It's just as easy to say you are bear hunting as it is to say you are cougar hunting. I think the reason they did it has more to do with all of the tree huggers infatuation with cougars. It's the same infatuation they have with wolves.
Post by: Kain on June 06, 2011, 11:45:47 AM
Post by: Jack Diamond on June 06, 2011, 08:41:21 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2011, 09:17:50 PM
The data does indicate that modern firarms hunters are taking a large number of cats in some areas, even more than hound hunters were taking. But that is not conclusive statewide. As was suggested here previously, they really have no count on cougar numbers, management is guided by harvest data in most areas of the state. They do have a good percentage of cats tagged in a couple areas, so they are able to predict roughly what percentage of cats are being taken in those areas by the percentage of marked cats that are taken. In one area that percentage was pretty high so cats are being pretty heavily harvested in some areas more than others. But, on the other hand, if you have a high harvest, then there is at least a pretty high population of cats, that point has to be driven home at times, they seem to overlook that liklihood.
With all that said, that is one of my reasons for suggesting year around hunting with an option for the dept to use permit only tags in areas that are below their management objective. If we suggest that, they may consider it. They may also consider limited entry cougar tags for deer and elk seasons too. It seems it would be hard for them to turn down the extra revenue of yet another draw for a few tags that most hunters will not fill anyway.
I know some of you hate all these draws, but that may be a way to get some cougar hunting back during deer and elk seasons. Just another suggestion to consider. We are definitely making headway with this conversation, lets keep hashing this out. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2011, 09:22:34 PM
Post by: D360 on June 06, 2011, 09:26:07 PM
Not saying how it needs to be, but trying to suggest an option that WDFW may consider.Sounds like a good idea, if WDFW would allow it. Just another chance to be out in the woods all year!
I have talked to WDFW about the cougar issue during general rifle seasons. They told me one reason they cut back was that too many cougar (especially females) were being taken in general rifle seasons. Even though individual opportunity is limited, there are so many hunters in the woods that harvest adds up.
It's easy to sweeten your coffee with a little sugar: So I was trying to suggest an option that may resonate with management and biology. At least if it was open other times of the year, it would give hunters another animal to hunt the rest of the year? :dunno:
That seems like a win/win to me, but it may not if you only like to make one or two hunting trips a year.
Any thoughts?
Post by: bobcat on June 06, 2011, 09:40:10 PM
Post by: Kain on June 06, 2011, 09:58:58 PM
I think "large numbers" is also relative. I mean there was only an average of 200 cats taken each year in the whole state. That number included all methods of harvest from hounds to damage permits. I think the idea of large number of cats being taken is based off flawed estimates in the first place. 200 cats is only 10% of the lowest estimates and I dont know a single person that believes there is only 2000 cats in this state. Even with taking 200 cats per year the population estimates went up.
Post by: stumprat on June 06, 2011, 10:13:00 PM
and how in the hell do they know actual cougar numbers anyway, they do not. ask the WDFW how many cougars reside in the Cedar river and Tolt and Green river watersheds, substantial land areas that are off limits to hunters, combined with national park areas, There never was a shortage of cougars when it was legal statewide to hunt with hounds.The hunters ed specialist in Ephrata stated to me 3 years ago that 20 cougars reside within the city limits of Cle-Elum. missing your puppy??
How long ago was it legal statewide with hounds? When hound hunting was legal. Cougar permits were by drawing. With varying numbers of permits in different G.M.U.'s
That also included boot hunters.
Post by: Kain on June 07, 2011, 09:27:01 AM
A current poll to see what direction everyone wants to go in. Please vote on any you like.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77423.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77423.0.html)
Post by: steeleywhopper on June 07, 2011, 09:07:53 PM
THe way I understood it, the weapon restriction was meant to help out the gamies. Turns out they commonly caught a guy running around during deer or elk season with a deer rifle when he had already filled his tags.Yea, so now instead we have guys running around with bows during archery deer, gamie says "are you deer hunting"? No, I don't have a deer tag but I'm cougar hunting. Same difference.. I dont see how this rule benefits anyone.
"Watcha doin'?"
"uh, Cougar huntin.." He replies.
cant prove he wasn't.. :dunno:
Post by: Jack Diamond on June 07, 2011, 09:16:56 PM
and how in the hell do they know actual cougar numbers anyway, they do not. ask the WDFW how many cougars reside in the Cedar river and Tolt and Green river watersheds, substantial land areas that are off limits to hunters, combined with national park areas, There never was a shortage of cougars when it was legal statewide to hunt with hounds.The hunters ed specialist in Ephrata stated to me 3 years ago that 20 cougars reside within the city limits of Cle-Elum. missing your puppy??
How long ago was it legal statewide with hounds? When hound hunting was legal. Cougar permits were by drawing. With varying numbers of permits in different G.M.U.'s
That also included boot hunters.
Well excuse me, I was remembering 1965, and a houndsman by name of Cougar Martin who would hunt cougars and bear on our ranch every year, always successful too! I have personally only shot 2 cougars in my lifetime and I did not have a permit, livestock depredation.1970ish
Post by: jackmaster on June 08, 2011, 07:04:00 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 08, 2011, 07:25:31 AM
i would be for huntn cougar and bear year around, but how would you keep from killing a momma that has youngans that are still to small to travel with her, if you want to fix it get hound huntn and baiting back, that way bear season can still open in august and close in december and cougar season could run from october to march again and thus taking the chance of killing a mom and letting her young starve to death, and those 2 methods are the safest and most efficient ways to take care of issues concerned by all :twocents::tup:
Post by: bearpaw on June 08, 2011, 07:40:30 AM
i would be for huntn cougar and bear year around, but how would you keep from killing a momma that has youngans that are still to small to travel with her, if you want to fix it get hound huntn and baiting back, that way bear season can still open in august and close in december and cougar season could run from october to march again and thus taking the chance of killing a mom and letting her young starve to death, and those 2 methods are the safest and most efficient ways to take care of issues concerned by all :twocents::tup:
As a longtime hound hunter (since 1976, and I still have hounds) I totally agree with this thought. In reality, the only way we can get hound hunting back is with a vote by the voters or by the legislators and we failed this year with the legislators.
In order to address the current situation, I think we should choose an option in the cougar poll and run with it.
Post by: Kain on June 08, 2011, 08:29:36 AM
i would be for huntn cougar and bear year around, but how would you keep from killing a momma that has youngans that are still to small to travel with her, if you want to fix it get hound huntn and baiting back, that way bear season can still open in august and close in december and cougar season could run from october to march again and thus taking the chance of killing a mom and letting her young starve to death, and those 2 methods are the safest and most efficient ways to take care of issues concerned by all :twocents:
I agree with the hound hunting but that is going to have to be a separate issue. As far as killing a cougar with young cubs that can happen at any time as cougars do not have a set breeding season. They can breed and have kittens anytime of the year. With a year round season, dedicated cougar hunters might not be tempted to shoot the first cougar they see.
Post by: bearpaw on June 08, 2011, 08:31:35 AM
i would be for huntn cougar and bear year around, but how would you keep from killing a momma that has youngans that are still to small to travel with her, if you want to fix it get hound huntn and baiting back, that way bear season can still open in august and close in december and cougar season could run from october to march again and thus taking the chance of killing a mom and letting her young starve to death, and those 2 methods are the safest and most efficient ways to take care of issues concerned by all :twocents:
I agree with the hound hunting but that is going to have to be a separate issue. As far as killing a cougar with young cubs that can happen at any time as cougars do not have a set breeding season. They can breed and have kittens anytime of the year.
I agree with both of your comments Kain....
Post by: jackmaster on June 08, 2011, 08:34:31 AM
Post by: Kain on June 08, 2011, 08:39:21 AM
i agree kain but for the most part cats breed in late winter and early spring, but either way its the only way to minimize the damage to the young, i know there is no one on here that would like to have to kill youngans because they killed the mom so lets do are best to minimize it, therefore maybe the public would except it a little better
I agree no one wants to kill a female with cubs and it is already illegal. I think it is important to point out the facts though. There is no breeding/birthing season and it doesnt matter when the kittens were born as they are dependent on the mother for over a year. So killing a mother with cubs in Oct still kills the kittens just as much as April.
Post by: jackmaster on June 08, 2011, 08:53:29 AM
Post by: Kain on June 08, 2011, 09:07:48 AM
Post by: jackmaster on June 08, 2011, 10:11:19 AM
Post by: Maverick on June 08, 2011, 02:13:33 PM
Post by: jackmaster on June 08, 2011, 02:19:32 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 08, 2011, 02:41:36 PM
Post by: jackmaster on June 08, 2011, 03:08:56 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on June 08, 2011, 05:00:57 PM
The Bio's say we are killing too many cougars in certain units thats why some west side units are permit only for boot hunters after the end of december wich I think is rediculas. We are being over run by cougars IMO. Deer pops are on the decline in a few areas and there are way more cougars being killed and way more sightings.
The bios say...the bios say.
These the same bios who say it's okay to have wolves here, they won't eat all of the deer and elk....
Just wondering
:dunno:
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 05:12:39 PM
The timberwolf is just another name for the gray wolf. There are 2 species of wolf in North America, the red wolf and the gray wolf. The gray wolf is sometimes called the timberwolf, but it is a gray wolf. The "native" wolf was not much smaller. The "native" wolf was 5-20 pounds smaller on average than the reintroduced gray wolves. Size is determined by diet.
BULL SH&T what about the Loafer Wolf, or the Red Wolf. Your lack of knowledge and lies are seeping through.
seth30, please reread my comment again. The "loafer" wolf is a gray wolf. I mentioned the red wolf already. I said there are 2 types of wolf in North America and that is the gray wolf and the red wolf.
Post by: dscubame on June 08, 2011, 05:16:16 PM
Post by: Kain on June 08, 2011, 07:45:01 PM
What does that prove? That 39 inch steelhead is always overstimated, a 300 class bull is usually in the 270 range, a 30 inch buck in usually no more then 25 inches wide??? The only native species of wolf is the timber wolf, a much smaller version.
The timberwolf is just another name for the gray wolf. There are 2 species of wolf in North America, the red wolf and the gray wolf. The gray wolf is sometimes called the timberwolf, but it is a gray wolf. The "native" wolf was not much smaller. The "native" wolf was 5-20 pounds smaller on average than the reintroduced gray wolves. Size is determined by diet.
BULL SH&T what about the Loafer Wolf, or the Red Wolf. Your lack of knowledge and lies are seeping through.
seth30, please reread my comment again. The "loafer" wolf is a gray wolf. I mentioned the red wolf already. I said there are 2 types of wolf in North America and that is the gray wolf and the red wolf.
I dont know what this has to do with wolves. People do not trust the garbage numbers coming out of the WDFW. In 2002 the estimated cougar population was 2500-3500. Cougar complaints had gotten so bad that the department initiated the Cougar Pilot Program to help deal with problem cats. That program was not started until 2004. Yet in 2003, a year before the pilot program started the est. pop was lowered to 1900-2100 cats. Anyone with half a brain can see there is a major problem with those numbers. Yet the department ate it up without question. From 2004-2007 the average harvest was 200 cats taken every year. That includes all methods of harvests. In 2008 the harvest numbers went down to 188 cats but the new population estimate went up to 2000-2500. The population went up but the WDFW decided to implement extremely reduced seasons and weapon restricted seasons. A bit excessive for only 12 less cats harvested.
The point is that no one trusts anything that the WDFW spews out anymore. So for you to come on here and keep spewing the same old lines over and over is not going to convince anyone. We have heard what you have to say and it has been disregarded. Get over it and move on.
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2011, 07:47:07 PM
What does that prove? That 39 inch steelhead is always overstimated, a 300 class bull is usually in the 270 range, a 30 inch buck in usually no more then 25 inches wide??? The only native species of wolf is the timber wolf, a much smaller version.
The timberwolf is just another name for the gray wolf. There are 2 species of wolf in North America, the red wolf and the gray wolf. The gray wolf is sometimes called the timberwolf, but it is a gray wolf. The "native" wolf was not much smaller. The "native" wolf was 5-20 pounds smaller on average than the reintroduced gray wolves. Size is determined by diet.
BULL SH&T what about the Loafer Wolf, or the Red Wolf. Your lack of knowledge and lies are seeping through.
seth30, please reread my comment again. The "loafer" wolf is a gray wolf. I mentioned the red wolf already. I said there are 2 types of wolf in North America and that is the gray wolf and the red wolf.
I dont know what this has to do with wolves. People do not trust the garbage numbers coming out of the WDFW. In 2002 the estimated cougar population was 2500-3500. Cougar complaints had gotten so bad that the department initiated the Cougar Pilot Program to help deal with problem cats. That program was not started until 2004. Yet in 2003, a year before the pilot program started the est. pop was lowered to 1900-2100 cats. Anyone with half a brain can see there is a major problem with those numbers. Yet the department ate it up without question. From 2004-2007 the average harvest was 200 cats taken every year. That includes all methods of harvests. In 2008 the harvest numbers went down to 188 cats but the new population estimate went up to 2000-2500. The population went up but the WDFW decided to implement extremely reduced seasons and weapon restricted seasons. A bit excessive for only 12 less cats harvested.
The point is that no one trusts anything that the WDFW spews out anymore. So for you to come on here and keep spewing the same old lines over and over is not going to convince anyone. We have heard what you have to say and it has been disregarded. Get over it and move on.
:yeah:
Post by: bobcat on June 08, 2011, 10:49:09 PM
I dont know what this has to do with wolves. People do not trust the garbage numbers coming out of the WDFW. In 2002 the estimated cougar population was 2500-3500. Cougar complaints had gotten so bad that the department initiated the Cougar Pilot Program to help deal with problem cats. That program was not started until 2004. Yet in 2003, a year before the pilot program started the est. pop was lowered to 1900-2100 cats. Anyone with half a brain can see there is a major problem with those numbers. Yet the department ate it up without question. From 2004-2007 the average harvest was 200 cats taken every year. That includes all methods of harvests. In 2008 the harvest numbers went down to 188 cats but the new population estimate went up to 2000-2500. The population went up but the WDFW decided to implement extremely reduced seasons and weapon restricted seasons. A bit excessive for only 12 less cats harvested.
The point is that no one trusts anything that the WDFW spews out anymore. So for you to come on here and keep spewing the same old lines over and over is not going to convince anyone. We have heard what you have to say and it has been disregarded. Get over it and move on.
From what I've read, I haven't seen where the WDFW has given any definite population numbers for cougars. They pretty much admit that they don't know how many cats there are.
From the 2009-2015 Game Management Plan:
Post by: Maverick on June 08, 2011, 11:12:06 PM
Post by: Kain on June 08, 2011, 11:15:02 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/cougars.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/cougars.html)
Quote
The cougar population for the year 2008 was estimated to be 2000 to 2,500 animals. The cougar population in eastern Washington is declining and the westside population is stable. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has nine management zones around the state designated for "maintain" or "decline," and adjusts harvest levels accordingly.
If those numbers are completely flawed or being manipulated then there is a problem. Of course I dont expect them to try and count all the cougars but using numbers from three areas and then extrapolating them across the whole state is rediculous. Any technique that approximated the minimum at 900 cats should be thrown out the window. If I was having record complaints and was working to implement a pilot hound hunting program and then got a new report that had a 1500 drop in population I would throw it in the trash where it belongs. But they didnt, they used them. And not only did they use them, they used 6 year old estimates to draft the 2009-2015 management plan despite having new number from 2008.
Corruption or incompetence? You decide.
Post by: Kain on June 08, 2011, 11:37:50 PM
really how many people are out there that would be upset to not see cougars around? I'm not saying hey lets kill them all off. But they aren't like deer and elk or anything else where people love seeing them around. Besides when they're tearing up a farmers land. I wouldn't enjoy seeing one in my yard like a deer. I wouldn't enjoy seeing one at all unless I had a tag and could shoot it. There are way more around then we need in this state.
I have a great fondness for these animals. I would be very upset to not have a good healthy sustainable population. You are absolutely right about there being more than we need though.
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2011, 12:27:17 AM
I would like to point out that we have all seen the photos of the group of cougar (I think it was 8 of them), wasn't those photo taken in the middle of the white area where there are supposed to be no cougar.... :chuckle:
If that is the case, we definitely have more cougar than WDFW claims. :twocents:
Post by: carpsniperg2 on June 09, 2011, 12:35:47 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2011, 12:59:01 AM
Bobcat thanks for posting the cougar map from the WDFW.
I would like to point out that we have all seen the photos of the group of cougar (I think it was 8 of them), wasn't those photo taken in the middle of the white area where there are supposed to be no cougar.... :chuckle:
If that is the case, we definitely have more cougar than WDFW claims. :twocents:
Kain, if I am correct about this, it would make a very good argument that WDFW is under estimating Washington's cougar population. :twocents:
Post by: denali on June 09, 2011, 01:07:31 AM
hey.. don't leave us out, a cougar was found in a house under construction in Richland recently, the Tri-Cities is one of those white areas on the map. :chuckle:
Post by: jackmaster on June 09, 2011, 06:42:42 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2011, 07:01:17 AM
I have to go to work, talk later.
Post by: hogsniper on June 09, 2011, 07:38:29 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on June 09, 2011, 07:58:51 AM
Im curious as to where these overpopulated areas of cougars are that many of you speak of. I understand there are area's where more complaints are occuring and that is largly due to the urbanization of the state. If you are that worried about ungulate populations maybe you should worry about poaching and regulating specific gmu's a little better. With that said I am all for the cougar pilot program and it is a shame that it is being put aside.
:yike: That's the most intelligent statement I've ever seen you make! That "buy you books and send you to school" program seems to be really working! By the way, I completely agree with your post. :)
Post by: rasbo on June 09, 2011, 08:41:41 AM
Post by: rainshadow1 on June 09, 2011, 08:42:11 AM
Post by: Kain on June 09, 2011, 08:50:59 AM
Im curious as to where these overpopulated areas of cougars are that many of you speak of. I understand there are area's where more complaints are occuring and that is largly due to the urbanization of the state. If you are that worried about ungulate populations maybe you should worry about poaching and regulating specific gmu's a little better. With that said I am all for the cougar pilot program and it is a shame that it is being put aside.
Haha this stuff always cracks me up. So the state does not have to have any hard fast numbers but if we have a problem with their management and estimations we have to show what they cant. Kill sites, tracks, trail cam pics, news reports, incident reports, sightings, drop in deer and elk numbers, hounds treeing lots of cats in last years season ALL point to higher than estimated numbers. I have attached a word document that has 579 reported cougar incidents since March of 2010. These are only the ones that got reported. Any guesses how many didnt get reported?
Large predators in urban/suburban areas and poaching is a major problem. Why would you feel that if we want cougars managed properly that we dont want poachers dealt with also. If we were trying to get more enforcement officers due to poaching couldnt some one just come in and point out there are too many cougars and that is a bigger problem?
Do you have a plan or group that wants to deal with the poaching problem because I would love to offer my support?
Post by: Kain on June 09, 2011, 08:58:12 AM
I will not support a year round hunt for cougar,Aug 1st to march 15 would be fine with me...if we get the populations down to much then I believe only those with hounds will stand a chance at getting them.and I myself cannot afford to pay someone to hunt them for me...even the cats need some down time from pressure if we want to maintain a huntable amount of cats for the boot guys
:yeah:
I agree with you. I dont think a year long season in certain areas is out of the question though just as I wouldnt be against a limited season in areas that need that. I want to be fighting for a good healthy sustainable population in every area that can benefit from cougars. I think they are far beyond that though.
I fully support hound hunting but I do notice boot hunters kinda get thrown under the bus when they start arguing the benefits of hounds.
Post by: Kain on June 09, 2011, 09:45:16 AM
HS, the very fact that there are transient Cougars in (human) populated areas clearly indicates that the "prime habitat" has a 'no vacancy' sign hanging out front. Cougars self regulate their density by their territorial nature. Historically, the only way for the population to increase is for the population to spread geographically. We know that urban growth has forced this to change a little, and the density is increasing some... but even with that, we've got transient cats (usually young males) making trouble. Clear indication that remote territories are saturated. Bios know this, but politics take the front seat.
Well said. What kind of a hunting season or harvest level would it take to make a dent in the current population? It seems like no matter how many cougar hunters take, it will only be taking away from the numbers of cougar that kill each other. Then the population stay relatively unchanged.
Oregon has switched to a year round season in some areas. I think Im with Rasbo on this but Im wondering if that isnt what might be needed just to make a dent. It is never good for an animal to be at or over carrying capacity. Everybody looses in that case.
Post by: Curly on June 09, 2011, 09:47:48 AM
Corruption or incompetence? You decide.
I used to think it was incompetence. I'm now starting to think it's a bit of both. :(
Post by: Houndhunter on June 09, 2011, 11:58:13 AM
Post by: jackmaster on June 09, 2011, 12:04:55 PM
Post by: Kain on June 09, 2011, 12:05:22 PM
i would like to get involved in this, im not sure how much i can help but i do have some old info that i dont believe is available anymore on the wdfw site. i think what we need to do is compose a well written and professional artical and try to get it published as much as possible. i know from the report i did it was quite easy to show that the population estimates are not accurate and manageing them the way we are know is not effective. if i was able to change the minds of my classmates at one of the most liberal colleges in the state, i think we have a good chance at changing the minds of others that we need some major changes in controlling the lion population. from my, although some what small, expeirence in discussing this topic with the non-hunting community is that they will support us to a certain extent if properly informed. getting the wdfw involved would be the next step, but i think we should start out with informing the public and getting responses to show our game dept that this is an issue that needs to be addressed
:rockin: I would love to see what you have. I dont know if you have seen the poll going on in Washington for Wildlife section but what you are talking about is exactly what we are looking for and we would love the help.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77423.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77423.0.html)
If you dont want to join we all would still appreciate anything you can contribute.